Vincent v. Voight

PLAINTIFFS’ ORAL ARGUMENT OUTLINE

 

INTRODUCTION

    1. The public school is a unique American institution – the engine of democracy, driving progress, providing stability for society
    2. It has been nurtured by the states and protected in their constitutions

ARTICLE X, WIS. CONSTITUTION.

    1. Created to serve the needs of a new State challenged to assimilate waves of immigrants and build a strong community and economy.
    2. State is to insure education for all -- not just the privileged
    3. Art. X, sec. 3 – the legislature shall establish "district schools, which shall be as nearly uniform as practicable."
    4. As many decisions (cited in our briefs) have held, the standard of uniformity as applied to school finance systems is EQUAL ACCESS TO RESOURCES

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM: THE SYSTEM LACKS UNIFORMITY

    1. As a result, students are denied their fundamental right to equal educational opportunities
    2. Admitted by DPI: "…a student living in a district with high property values is likely to have more money spent on her or his education than a student living in a district with low property values." (A.Ap. 546)
    3. Recognized by Judge Dykman in his concurring opinion: "After reading the record in this case, I agree with the trial court’s conclusion that lower spending school districts are laboring under very difficult conditions." (A.Ap. 135) --and he goes on to detail those conditions.
    4. Problems is even more broad based – low wealth districts are struggling even when they exert greater tax effort to spend at about the state average--E.g. Elk Mound and Webster (Reply Brief, p. 13)
    • Similar size, same geographical area
    • In 1996-97 both spent less than the state average ($7,591.17) (Webster-$7.332; Elk Mound-$7,187)
    • Webster has a 3.6+ times greater tax base than Elk Mound
    • As a result, in 1996-97 Elk Mound had to tax $2.25 more to spend $145 per student less.
    • Situations like this have consequences – Vincent Affidavit (A.Ap. 596)
      • Delayed textbook adoptions
      • Limited course offerings
      • Behind in technology
      • Superintendent Vincent’s conclusion:

"Under the present state school finance system, we cannot provide the same educational opportunities for our students that others with more tax base can, at least not without a greater commitment from our taxpayers than is required from taxpayers in wealthier districts."

WHY IS THE SYSTEM DISEQUALIZED?

    1. Must look at the system as a whole (Handout)
    • State would have you believe that 92.5% of the districts with 96% of the students are fully equalized – not so
    • State just focuses on equalization aid (as did Kukor)
    1. State ignores 24% of the state contribution to the finance system – see chart, Reply Brief, p. 7
    2. Plaintiffs’ evidence explains why the system is disequalized:
    • Statistical evidence
    • Correlations: Statz Affidavits (A.Ap. 429 et seq.) conclude that property-rich districts spend more, but tax at lower rates than property-poor districts
    • True before and after 1995 Act 27
    • If commitment to equalized aid is reduced, disequalizers will have even more impact (reference Handout)
    • Illustrated by district comparisons (such as Elk Mound and Webster)

HOW DID THIS COME ABOUT?

    1. In Buse, this Court struck down a school finance system that provided uniformity by affording districts equal access to resources -- because the Court found that the system violated the tax uniformity clause of Art. VIII.
    2. Then, in Kukor, this Court assumed the school finance system provided equal access to resources, and did not consider the question (148 Wis. 2d at 480).
    3. In the meantime, since 1976 the legislature has done nothing to restore the uniformity lost on account of Buse – and in fact has added disequalizing elements to the system such as unequalized school levy tax credits, the first tier hold harmless and the other disequalizers identified in our briefs.

 

WHERE DO WE NEED TO GO: THE NEED FOR REFORM

    1. Legislators looking for guidance – amicus brief by 24 of them, 14 of whom were in the legislature when 1995 Act 27 was enacted.
    2. Lower courts looking for standards: Judge Dykman (A.Ap. 136) and Judge Callaway (A.Ap. 175-76)

 

REMEDY: DECLARE EQUAL ACCESS TO RESOURCES TO BE THE STANDARD OF UNIFORMITY

    1. Reject the State’s contention that per capita distribution is enough – misreads the constitutional history and the constitution (sec. 5 only applies to the school fund)
    • Equal Access to Resources is an elegantly simple standard to apply
    • Equalize all state aids – adjust for special needs
    1. No additional state funding is necessarily required
    2. Create system where all districts the spend the same will tax the same